Sabarimala Reference: SC Debates Limits of Entry Rights and Religious Autonomy

April 28, 2026 : During the ongoing hearing in the Sabarimala Reference, the Supreme Court engaged in a detailed examination of how individual rights to worship intersect with the collective rights of religious communities to manage their institutions.

Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah underscored that every place of worship must operate within a structured framework. He observed that without a recognized authority to regulate rituals, practices, and the sequence of worship, religious institutions would risk descending into disorder. While he acknowledged that access cannot be denied arbitrarily or in violation of constitutional guarantees, he emphasized that norms governing religious spaces must be set by an identifiable body rather than by individuals acting independently.

Advocate Nizam Pasha, appearing for the Peerzada of the Dargah of Hazrat Khwaja Nizamuddin Aulia, argued that the issue of “entry” lies at the core of the constitutional balance between Articles 25 and 26. He submitted that Article 25 protects an individual’s right to practice religion, while Article 26 safeguards a denomination’s right to manage its own affairs. According to him, entry into a place of worship is precisely where these two guarantees intersect.

Pasha cautioned that removing denominational protections would create a constitutional inconsistency. In such a scenario, any individual could claim the right to enter a religious space and perform rituals inconsistent with that faith, effectively undermining the identity of the institution. He illustrated this by arguing that without Article 26 protection, one could insist on performing Aarti or Bhajans inside a mosque, which would be incompatible with its religious character.

He further contended that even places of worship open to the public do not lose their denominational identity. Relying on precedent, he argued that allowing access to non-adherents does not dilute the managing community’s rights. The critical legal question, he said, is identifying who constitutes the relevant religious community entitled to claim protection under Article 26.

The Bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna, M.M. Sundresh, A.G. Masih, Prasanna B. Varale, R. Mahadevan, Joymalya Bagchi, and others, is hearing a batch of petitions arising from the 2018 Sabarimala judgment, which permitted entry of women of all ages into the temple.

The broader reference also touches on related questions, including entry of Muslim women into mosques and dargahs, rights of Parsi women married outside the community to access fire temples, and the constitutional validity of practices such as female genital mutilation within certain communities.

Across submissions, senior counsel presented sharply differing views. While some argued that courts have the authority to examine essential religious practices, others maintained that faith-based matters fall outside judicial competence. The hearing continues to test the constitutional boundaries between individual freedom of religion and the autonomy of religious denominations.